[GO] Unrated, Unranked, or No Points Games

[Metsfanmax]

the potential for abuse is real and too plausible to implement this

Yes, I agree that it is our mission here at the Conquer Club to prevent grown men and women from playing games for points against skilled Risk players because they might be abused. Sure, it's not quite as bad as being raped or molested, but it's a pretty horrible experience and no one should ever have to go through it.

(It's OK if they play the exact same games with the exact same settings without points though. Then it's not abuse, because no more internet e-penis points are involved.)

[JamesKer1]

I'm open to discussion about this, but there doesn't seem to be any reasoning besides that which has been introduced already EXCEPT for betiko's point about seed games, which makes sense and I don't recall coming across before. However, I'm not about to turn around verdicts handed down by those higher up than me or suggest that we should.

Fp'd by Mets. Feels like a Maf game all over again.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm open to discussion about this, but there doesn't seem to be any reasoning besides that which has been introduced already EXCEPT for betiko's point about seed games, which makes sense and I don't recall coming across before. However, I'm not about to turn around verdicts handed down by those higher up than me or suggest that we should.

I am suggesting that you should. The 'official' policy has been ridiculous the entire time it's been around.

Conquer Club is dying, man. Gotta shake things up if you want to save it.

[rhp 1]

the potential for abuse is real and too plausible to implement this

Yes, I agree that it is our mission here at the Conquer Club to prevent grown men and women from playing games for points against skilled Risk players because they might be abused. Sure, it's not quite as bad as being raped or molested, but it's a pretty horrible experience and no one should ever have to go through it.

(It's OK if they play the exact same games with the exact same settings without points though. Then it's not abuse, because no more internet e-penis points are involved.)

top 100 post of all time

[degaston]

the potential for abuse is real and too plausible to implement this

Yes, I agree that it is our mission here at the Conquer Club to prevent grown men and women from playing games for points against skilled Risk players because they might be abused. Sure, it's not quite as bad as being raped or molested, but it's a pretty horrible experience and no one should ever have to go through it.

(It's OK if they play the exact same games with the exact same settings without points though. Then it's not abuse, because no more internet e-penis points are involved.)

Is there something I'm not getting here, because your post kind of makes my brain hurt. Maybe I'm over-analyzing it - It looks like sarcasm, but instead of using words to indicate the opposite of their literal meaning, you appear to be literally disagreeing with owen, so if it's sarcasm, does that mean that you actually agree with the current policy?

[Metsfanmax]

the potential for abuse is real and too plausible to implement this

Yes, I agree that it is our mission here at the Conquer Club to prevent grown men and women from playing games for points against skilled Risk players because they might be abused. Sure, it's not quite as bad as being raped or molested, but it's a pretty horrible experience and no one should ever have to go through it.

(It's OK if they play the exact same games with the exact same settings without points though. Then it's not abuse, because no more internet e-penis points are involved.)

Is there something I'm not getting here, because your post kind of makes my brain hurt. Maybe I'm over-analyzing it - It looks like sarcasm, but instead of using words to indicate the opposite of their literal meaning, you appear to be literally disagreeing with owen, so if it's sarcasm, does that mean that you actually agree with the current policy?

[degaston]

So can you help me out here and explain exactly what my epic fail was?

[Metsfanmax]

The post is sarcastic. The substance of the post agrees with what owen said and yet I am clearly saying absurd things to agree with the point, such as the suggestion that losing a Risk game and being molested are comparable. (If you think it is "literally disagreeing" with owen, then you failed to comprehend what owen was saying...) I don't see what the problem is here, and if there was any doubt as to my position you could have looked at the subsequent thing I posted in response to James.

(And every other single thing I've posted about unranked games on CC.)

[degaston]

The post is sarcastic. The substance of the post agrees with what owen said and yet I am clearly saying absurd things to agree with the point,

Okay, let me try again...

the potential for abuse is real and too plausible to implement this

So he's saying that we cannot allow people to play for no points, because they would somehow abuse it.

Yes, I agree that it is our mission here at the Conquer Club to prevent grown men and women from playing games for points against skilled Risk players because they might be abused.

And you're saying that we cannot allow people to play games for points, which is the opposite of what he said. I thought maybe you just left out the word "no", but then your second statement was:

(It's OK if they play the exact same games with the exact same settings without points though. Then it's not abuse, because no more internet e-penis points are involved.)

Again, you're stating the opposite of his view, but your wording makes it look like you were trying to sarcastically agree with him.


And yes, I was pretty sure which side you were on, but that particular post made no sense.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes, I agree that it is our mission here at the Conquer Club to prevent grown men and women from playing games for points against skilled Risk players because they might be abused.

And you're saying that we cannot allow people to play games for points, which is the opposite of what he said.

OK, so the way English grammar works is that you have to include all of the words in a sentence to understand its meaning. In this case, the relevant phrase was not highlighted in bold red font but consists of the words "because they might be abused." That is, I was sarcastically suggesting that we should prevent people from playing the types of games for points in which they might be abused. (Owen's argument is that these games will become very common in the situation in which there are also points-free games.) I agree that if you leave out parts of my sentence then it starts to make less sense, so perhaps I should include a qualifier in future posts reminding people to read the entirety of my post before responding.

(It's OK if they play the exact same games with the exact same settings without points though. Then it's not abuse, because no more internet e-penis points are involved.)

Again, you're stating the opposite of his view, but your wording makes it look like you were trying to sarcastically agree with him.

Pretty sure you just didn't understand his point, because the whole thing I'm making fun of is the fact that he doesn't seem to have a problem with points-free games as such; his only argument is that it will ruin the games that do have points because most of the games played for points will be started by farmers.

[degaston]

Pretty sure you just didn't understand his point, because the whole thing I'm making fun of is the fact that he doesn't seem to have a problem with points-free games as such; his only argument is that it will ruin the games that do have points because most of the games played for points will be started by farmers.

I really don't see how you can interpret statements like:

they are never going to let experienced players play an unlimited amount of games against each other for no loss of points... never... defeats the purpose of the site, the purpose of the game, the purpose of life...

and

if you don't want to play against other people for points, then find a site where you can do that or just buy a board game each and play over skype...

to mean that he doesn't have a problem with no points games. He seems to have such a big problem with no points games that he would rather have people leave the site than allow them. (I did not include the entire text from his posts because I didn't think it was relevant, but I do not think that I am misrepresenting his opinion.)

If you can find anything he wrote that indicates he is fine with no points games, feel free to post it, but it seems to me that you were the one who misinterpreted his view.

That said, I'm sorry if I offended you with these posts. It seems like a dumb thing to quibble over, especially when we're on the same side of this topic, so I'd prefer to just drop it.

[Metsfanmax]

Pretty sure you just didn't understand his point, because the whole thing I'm making fun of is the fact that he doesn't seem to have a problem with points-free games as such; his only argument is that it will ruin the games that do have points because most of the games played for points will be started by farmers.

I really don't see how you can interpret statements like:

they are never going to let experienced players play an unlimited amount of games against each other for no loss of points... never... defeats the purpose of the site, the purpose of the game, the purpose of life...

and

if you don't want to play against other people for points, then find a site where you can do that or just buy a board game each and play over skype...

to mean that he doesn't have a problem with no points games. He seems to have such a big problem with no points games that he would rather have people leave the site than allow them. (I did not include the entire text from his posts because I didn't think it was relevant, but I do not think that I am misrepresenting his opinion.)

I didn't say he has no problem with having no points games. I said that it is not the existence of the no-points games themselves that bothers him. It is the fact that their existence will encourage people to stop regularly playing games for points that bothers him. That is the only thing he raised an objection to. Yes, I recognize there is some minor amount of subtlety to this joke, but I trust that you'll understand if you think about it hard enough.

That said, I'm sorry if I offended you with these posts. It seems like a dumb thing to quibble over, especially when we're on the same side of this topic, so I'd prefer to just drop it.

One upshot of this is that at least owen will understand the joke now.

[BigBallinStalin]

Continued rejection of zero-point games has been detrimental to the growth of games on this site. Although a point system encourages people to play games, it also has the unintended consequence of discouraging relatively high-point players from playing with lower point players. Regardless of the perceived problems of zero-point games, such games should, nevertheless, still be allowed.

[degaston]

Continued rejection of zero-point games has been detrimental to the growth of games on this site. Although a point system encourages people to play games, it also has the unintended consequence of discouraging relatively high-point players from playing with lower point players. Regardless of the perceived problems of zero-point games, such games should, nevertheless, still be allowed.

One possible concern with this is that each additional setting they add seems to increase the amount of time it takes to get a game filled. In the short term, it could make things worse for people who want to play for points, because potential opponents would have a choice of playing with the identical settings for no points. But I think in the long-run, it would benefit the site by encouraging more activity overall, and people would be more willing to try out maps and settings they haven't tried before because it wouldn't cost them any points if they lost. And if they won, then they would be more likely to play those same settings for points.

I made a suggestion to address the problem of games taking forever to fill up, but after 11 days, fewer than 40 people have even looked at it, and no one has commented. Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem?

[Sirius Kase]

I do pratice game with friends. At the end some of us lose points some of us win some. I think we don't care that much. I don't know why the OP care, your rank quite low anyway ( doesn't want to be offensive just a fact ).

I still support risk free games for speeds though, because I think it would increase activity on the speed game pages, and that would be great.


NB : I find it totally unfair that beta tester are allow to have unlimited amount of games worth no points !!!

My rank has been all over the place, it is low at the moment, when it gets high, I sign up for games that are difficult for me. But, I don't mind, I know why my rank is low. My main point was to be able to expose newbies to other boards and options, without being a farmer.

I support options that I don't use, here and in real life. It's not like anyone is planning to force anyone else to play no points games. If someone can explain how this option hurts players who aren't involved in this sort of game, I would appreciate it.

Like risk free speed games, I think this would increase the pleasure of some people who don't hang around long enough to get skills.

[Sirius Kase]

If someone can explain how this option hurts players who aren't involved in this sort of game, I would appreciate it.

Forgive me for replying to myself. I went back and read the whole thread and found an answer to my question. see the concern that unrated games would detract from rated games. That's is the best answer I have found. It's a hypothesis, since it isn't really clear whether or not it is true. Personally, I would continue to play mostly rated games. But, I like the option of getting with a friend to mess around with an unfamiliar board for the purpose of getting familiar with it. Or, bringing them up to speed with a board I already know without dropping their score.

[BigBallinStalin]

Continued rejection of zero-point games has been detrimental to the growth of games on this site. Although a point system encourages people to play games, it also has the unintended consequence of discouraging relatively high-point players from playing with lower point players. Regardless of the perceived problems of zero-point games, such games should, nevertheless, still be allowed.

One possible concern with this is that each additional setting they add seems to increase the amount of time it takes to get a game filled. In the short term, it could make things worse for people who want to play for points, because potential opponents would have a choice of playing with the identical settings for no points. But I think in the long-run, it would benefit the site by encouraging more activity overall, and people would be more willing to try out maps and settings they haven't tried before because it wouldn't cost them any points if they lost. And if they won, then they would be more likely to play those same settings for points.

I made a suggestion to address the problem of games taking forever to fill up, but after 11 days, fewer than 40 people have even looked at it, and no one has commented. Am I the only one who thinks this is a problem?

Hasn't that game-delay issue already been discussed? I remember talking about it somewhere awhile ago.

RE: that concern, I don't see how that follows. Addition heterogeneity of games has probably contributed to less games... but most of that is explained by losing more than half of our members over the years. When demand and supply fall, expect fewer games to be filled. Sure, more game settings could've contributed to the Great Decline, but at this stage, I don't think we should be too concerned about consequences (this goes back to my 'external market demand' hypothesis).

Besides, zero-point games would encourage more game creation and joining, so why worry?

[degaston]

Hasn't that game-delay issue already been discussed? I remember talking about it somewhere awhile ago.

I may have missed the game delay thread. Do you know where it is? Let me take a stab in the dark and guess that in the end, there was no resolution and nothing was done?

RE: that concern, I don't see how that follows. Addition heterogeneity of games has probably contributed to less games... but most of that is explained by losing more than half of our members over the years. When demand and supply fall, expect fewer games to be filled. Sure, more game settings could've contributed to the Great Decline, but at this stage, I don't think we should be too concerned about consequences (this goes back to my 'external market demand' hypothesis).

It may not appear to affect paid members much - they can join any game that interests them, or create as many new games as they like. Each game can have a different combination of settings and maps, and they can just wait to see what fills up. But from a rough sample, I would estimate that around 60% of the players here are fremiums, and I think it affects them greatly.

They can only join up to 4 games, so they have to be much more choosy about which games to sign up for. If they join games that take a long time to fill up, then they could be stuck waiting for weeks or months. They could play two-player games, but having only one opponent to attack reduces the strategic complexity of the game, and luck (drop, dice, cards) becomes a much bigger factor. I realize that there are more two-player games than any other kind (though 4, 6, 8 and 12 player games have more total players), but is this because people prefer them, or because they want to play quickly, and that's the easiest way to get a game started immediately? Perhaps if there was a way to sort the waiting games list by the number of players needed, that would help, but I think it's still missing out on the potential to have a lot more activity on the site.

There are probably a lot of games waiting for players that could easily fill up, but until they come close to being filled, the fremiums are not going to sign up for them because that would take one of their few game slots. Even if they do sign up for the 4 games they are most interested in playing, there may be many other games that they would be willing to play, but those games will sit there unfilled because there's no way for the fremiums to indicate that they would be interested in them. This is where it comes back to affect the paid members - their games take longer to fill up because there's no way for people with a limited number of games to indicate all of the games they would be willing to play.

So while I am completely in favor of allowing unrated games for all, I think it could make it even more difficult to get games filled unless they also improve the gamefinder or implement my matchmaker suggestion. Another possibility could be to allow fremiums to join as many unfilled games as they want, but as soon as their 4th slot is filled, they are automatically dropped from all other unfilled games.

[Sirius Kase]

Another possibility could be to allow fremiums to join as many unfilled games as they want, but as soon as their 4th slot is filled, they are automatically dropped from all other unfilled games

I like this last possibility. I went over and read about your Matchmaker systems, and I can only speak for myself, it's too complicated for me to want to use. If I was looking for a game, I would just use the Game Finder. The only improvement would be to name and memorize configurations, but, even that wouldn't benefit me since I like variety, lots of boards, lots of different option combinations, so I don't mind running the Game Finder and seeing what's out there. But, if someone wanted to code Matchmaker, I wouldn't object to it existing even if I never used it.

But, allowing Freemiums to sign up for more than four, and then having the extra ones dropped when four games become active, that might work. But, if I as a premium was waiting for a game to fill and it suddenly became less full because the freemiums were dropped, that would be disappointing. Odds are, several freemiums would be signing up for same games and so when one filled, several other games would lose half their sign ups.

[degaston]

I like this last possibility. I went over and read about your Matchmaker systems, and I can only speak for myself, it's too complicated for me to want to use. If I was looking for a game, I would just use the Game Finder. The only improvement would be to name and memorize configurations, but, even that wouldn't benefit me since I like variety, lots of boards, lots of different option combinations, so I don't mind running the Game Finder and seeing what's out there. But, if someone wanted to code Matchmaker, I wouldn't object to it existing even if I never used it.

What I was proposing was no more complicated for the user than using game finder. And the whole point of it is to save configurations - or were you talking about saving them to reuse with game finder? (Which I agree is something that game finder should do.)

If you prefer to use game finder instead of getting a notice about new games, that's fine. But whether you use it or not, wouldn't it benefit you if games filled up faster?

But, allowing Freemiums to sign up for more than four, and then having the extra ones dropped when four games become active, that might work. But, if I as a premium was waiting for a game to fill and it suddenly became less full because the freemiums were dropped, that would be disappointing. Odds are, several freemiums would be signing up for same games and so when one filled, several other games would lose half their sign ups.

Yes, I thought about the fact that games would seem to be almost full, and then would lose players, but if the end result is that more games actually do fill up, then wouldn't it be worth it?

[Donelladan]

Your idea for the freemium is excellent. You should make another suggestion for it degaston.

[degaston]

Your idea for the freemium is excellent. You should make another suggestion for it degaston.

Done.

[Invdr_zim]

The whole point to this site is to have fun, compete, learn and master the game, am I wrong? Having the option of risk free games will add to just that, I see how it can build a better online community as it would allow more users play together regularly, build new connections, and really learn from each other.... not to mention that because people would be playing together more regularly it will yield even more friendly competitions (this is what we want, right?). This could also be a great way to bring in new players, build our community and have a longer retention rate for newbies as they can learn at their own pace without getting beat up (yes I know that this is what the guide games are for, but risk free games coupled with the risk free guide games does seem more inviting... just thinking as a new player would).

i think people would abuse it... people would become specialist on one or a few maps and a few settings and harvest points in that manner, the same way we had it done with freestyle in the past (when a loophole was exploited and players that were not aware of it, literally had no chance)... if you don't want to play against other people for points, then find a site where you can do that or just buy a board game each and play over skype... *cough*... anyway, i agree with the above statement, always have and nothing has been said to dissuade me from that stance... the potential for abuse is real and too plausible to implement this... you know, kind of like the "surrender button" that everyone that comes across the site, seems to think we need... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir

What is wrong with improving and mastering a particular board and building experience on any given game? ... seems that the more experienced people you have playing the more interesting the games will be over all. Now I can't figure out how this system will be abused... if a person sets up a game that they have practiced on and are really familiar on it, then good for them... no one is held at metaphorical gun point and made to play that game... if someone joins that's their prerogative, or they can play a board that they're more familiar with. It is really no different than someone (with the system as is now) setting up a game (they're setting it up because they have experience in that particular board), if you join that's your deal or, as I said before you can select another game. So where is the abuse?

Continued rejection of zero-point games has been detrimental to the growth of games on this site. Although a point system encourages people to play games, it also has the unintended consequence of discouraging relatively high-point players from playing with lower point players. Regardless of the perceived problems of zero-point games, such games should, nevertheless, still be allowed.

My question to this is how exactly will it be detrimental to the site, how do we know this for certain when (from what I gather) we've never tried it. I don't understand why people are so against this change.

~~

Now just an idea but what about conquer stars/coins? Could we say compromise on paying for risk free games with conquer coins? You pay however many conquer stars/coins and then you can join x amount of risk free games. If abuse is something we are seriously worried about then why not use the conquer star/coin things?

[BigBallinStalin]

Continued rejection of zero-point games has been detrimental to the growth of games on this site. Although a point system encourages people to play games, it also has the unintended consequence of discouraging relatively high-point players from playing with lower point players. Regardless of the perceived problems of zero-point games, such games should, nevertheless, still be allowed.

My question to this is how exactly will it be detrimental to the site, how do we know this for certain when (from what I gather) we've never tried it. I don't understand why people are so against this change.

[owenshooter]

Continued rejection of zero-point games has been detrimental to the growth of games on this site. Although a point system encourages people to play games, it also has the unintended consequence of discouraging relatively high-point players from playing with lower point players. Regardless of the perceived problems of zero-point games, such games should, nevertheless, still be allowed.

My question to this is how exactly will it be detrimental to the site, how do we know this for certain when (from what I gather) we've never tried it. I don't understand why people are so against this change.

i liked the above image so much, i pinned it on pinterest...-Jésus noir